Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol VII, No. 2
CHILD OF SATURN (PART II)
Copyright (C) 1981 by Dwardu Cardona
6. Vishnu and Shiva
Immanuel Velikovsky's identification of the Indic deities as various planets is often inadequately documented. In some cases there is no supporting evidence whatever. One good example is the comparison of Athene's birth from Zeus with "Vishnu born of Shiva"(1) through which it is implied that, even in India, the Venerian planet was believed to have been "born" from the Jovian one. This, of course, necessitates the identification of Shiva as Jupiter and of Vishnu as Venus, both of which were proposed by Velikovsky.(2)
Let me say, at once, that at no time did the ancients ever identify these two deities as either of the two planets with which we are concerned.(3) True, this, in itself, does not prove Velikovsky wrong. After all, the Greeks never identified Athene as Venus either. That particular identification rests its case on comparative mythology. It is, therefore, through a similar process that we must evaluate Velikovsky's identification of Vishnu and Shiva as Venus and Jupiter.
What evidence did Velikovsky present for his identification of Shiva as Jupiter? Merely this:
In Greek mythology we see Zeus hurling his thunderbolts at the Earth. Zeus is equated with the planet Jupiter.
In Hindu mythology we see Shiva (or Siva) hurling his lightning at the world. Both Zeus and Shiva were depicted with lightning, or thunderbolts, in their hands.
Is this enough to equate Shiva with Zeus and, therefore, with the planet Jupiter? Even according to Velikovsky, Jupiter was not the only planet which interacted with its celestial neighbors by emitting interplanetary discharges. In Worlds in Collision, is Venus not also described as flinging her thunderbolts?(4) According to Pliny,(5) and this too is to be found in Worlds in Collision,(6) did not a bolt fall from Mars on Bolsena, "the richest town in Tuscany," and was not that city said to have been burned up by the bolt? In fact, is there any planetary deity mentioned in the mythology of any race that did not, at one time or another, discharge a bolt of lightning at one of its celestial rivals or even at mankind itself?(7)
Again, what evidence did Velikovsky supply for his identification of Vishnu as Venus? Merely this:
That Vishnu, like Zeus, battled a celestial serpent;(8) that Vishnu, like Athene, was a new-born deity;(9) that Vishnu's name has a meaning akin to that of Venus.(10)
Is this enough to equate Vishnu with Venus?
Consider: That Vishnu, like Zeus, battled a celestial serpent should equate Vishnu not with Venus but with Jupiter which Zeus represented. Velikovskian scholars will give me an argument here. They will point out that, according to Velikovsky, the battle of Zeus with Typhon was a battle between the Venerian orb and its cometary tail and that it was the ancients themselves who mistook the Venerian orb at close quarters with the more massive Jovian one.(11) But even if I were to grant that the battle between Zeus and Typhon was in actuality "fought" by Venus against its own tail – an interpretation that I contest – it does not necessarily follow that because Vishnu also battled a similar celestial serpent he should be identified with Venus. Indra also battled a celestial serpent(12) but, according to Velikovsky, Indra was Mars(13) – although that, too, I contest.
In fact, why is it that celestial serpents must necessarily be identified as manifestations of the cometary Venus? Saturn, too, was once described as a dragon.(14) The Axis Mundi, or World Axis, which is the Saturnian appendage I described elsewhere,(15) and which has now been given more substance by Talbott's analysis of Saturn's Polar Configuration,(16) was also described by the ancients as a celestial serpent monster(17) as was also the ring (or rings) which ancient man saw surrounding the primeval Sun of Night.(18) The cosmic serpent is much older than the Venerian dragon described by Velikovsky.(19)
That Vishnu, like Athene, was a new-born deity is hardly true. On the contrary, Vishnu was such an "old" deity that he was, by many, believed to have existed even before Brahma, the Creator.(20)
And finally, how valid is the comparison of Vishnu's name with that of Venus? Velikovsky compared the meaning of this Vedic deity, known as "the pervader" from Sanskrit vish, "to pervade" or "to enter", with what Manetho and Cicero said of their Venerian deities.(21) Of Athene, as also of Isis, Manetho said that the name meant "I came from myself".(22) Of Venus, Cicero said that the goddess was so named because she "comes [venire] to all things".(23) But by what stretch of linguistic license does "to pervade" or "to enter" equate with "to come"?
[*!* Image] Vishnu. 10th century sculpture from Central India. Photograph by Dwardu Cardona, Courtesy of the British Museum, London.
"Vishnu born of Shiva" cannot therefore be used as evidence of Venus' "birth" from Jupiter. Not only are the two deities in question unidentifiable as Venus and Jupiter, research indicates that Vishnu and Shiva are both aspects of the planet Saturn. This assertion forces me to produce my evidence. Elsewhere, I shall be able to go into much more detail but, for the present, the following should suffice.
In Vishnu's case, the evidence is clear-cut. We have it on the authority of the Vishnu Purana that Vishnu was equated with Brahma.(24) That Brahma was the Vedic Saturn even Velikovsky accepted (25)
The evidence for Shiva, on the other hand, is somewhat more circumstantial – but telling nonetheless. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva (as Rudra) all participated in a collective effort at Creation,(26) an event which elsewhere I have already shown to have been directly connected with Saturn.(27) Just as Kronos, when rendered "Chronos", means "Time", so did Shiva's title of Kala also mean "Time".(28) Finally, in Hari-Hara we see a combination of Shiva and Vishnu as one and the same deity.(29) So that if Vishnu were the same as Brahma/Saturn, then so was Shiva.
The above has not gone uncontested. Jan Sammer has recently brought to my attention a series of data which do seem to imply a direct connection of Shiva with Jupiter.(30) Shiva's epithet of trilochana, or "three-eyed," for instance, is an exact counterpart of one of the titles borne by the Greek Zeus – namely triophthalmos.(31) Besides which, it was years ago that Sir William Jones asserted Shiva's identity as Jupiter(32) while Francis Wilford also reported that "many of the Hindus acknowledge that Siva, or the God Jupiter, shines in that planet".(33) Is it possible that, where Velikovsky failed, Sammer has succeeded?
Jones, like Velikovsky, can assert whatever he wishes. The content of Indic lore, as outlined above, is against both their assertions. As for Wilford, the acknowledgement of modern Hindus that Shiva shines in the planet Jupiter is as good as his other assertion that the Sun "is the peculiar station of Vishnu".(34) If Sammer accepts one, he will also have to accept the other. We will also have to accept similar assertions by others which make Athene to be the Moon,(35) and Osiris to be the Sun.(36) The belief of modern Hindus does not necessarily reflect that of their ancient forefathers. In Ptolemaic times, in Egypt, Osiris was considered the god of the planet Venus,(36a) Ra the god of the planet Mars,(37) and Set the god of the planet Mercury.(38) But we find nothing to substantiate this late belief in the literature of the more ancient dynasties. It is in earliest antiquity that we must seek the answer. Besides which, none of the above holds up under the scrutiny of comparative mythology.
We are, however, left with Shiva's and Zeus' identical epithets of "three-eyed". Zeus' three eyes, it is true, do not exactly constitute a well known characteristic of the deity, whereas Shiva's do. Even so, we cannot rightly ignore the datum. But consider: The sky pillar was an ancient characteristic of Zeus.(39) It was also an archaic rendition of Kronos.(40) Does this mean that Zeus was Saturn, or that Kronos was Jupiter – that Zeus and Kronos were one and the same?
What it does mean is what is becoming quite evident: That, for a reason which is outside the scope of this paper, the Jovian deity "stole" many of the attributes which originally belonged to the Saturnian one. Elsewhere I have already shown how the Cosmic or World Mountain, as well as the idea of righteousness, passed from the Saturnian deity to the Jovian one.(41) We can add the "three-eyed" epithet to the growing list. Suffice it to say that the content of Indic lore, only a little of which has been outlined above, leaves no room for doubt concerning Shiva's identity, together with that of Vishnu, as an aspect of the "planet" Saturn.
The question may now be asked: Why did the Hindus venerate three separate deities all of whom personified one and the same planet? (And were the Hindus the only ones?)
The triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva is nothing but an echo of that early confusion of the ancients who found it hard to believe that one and the same god could have been the creator and sustainer as well as the destroyer of the world.(42) The different aspects of the celestial scourge above them were therefore differentiated into three separate divinities. Thus Brahma remained the Creator, with Vishnu as the Preserver, while Shiva became the Destroyer.(43) It was well understood by the ancients, however, that these deities, collectively known as the Trimurti, were in reality three gods in one.(44)
There are also strong indications that Saturn went through a series of changes which started long before, and continued long after, its initial flare-up. This celestial body seems to have changed its physical appearance, as it appeared in man's sky, more than once. For that reason Indic lore, as well as that of other races, bestowed upon the representative deity more than just three names. We shall encounter more of these in the pages that follow.
7. Kumara and Taraka
There is another deity presented in Worlds in Collision as having been born of Shiva. That deity is Kumara of whom Kalidasa poetized that he was born from Shiva when the latter "deposited his seed in fire".(1)
Velikovsky made reference to Kumara's battle with the demon Taraka and this reference is injected between passages which describe the supposed Martian events at the close of the 8th century B.C. This, again, follows an earlier section which analyses the celestial encounters between the planets Venus and Mars. The battle between Kumara and Taraka is thus presented as symbolizing the celestial fray between the two planets in question. Alice Miller, in her painstaking index to the works of Velikovsky, presented Kumara as Venus(2) and Taraka as Mars.(3) In Worlds in Collision, however, it is not quite clear whether this is what Velikovsky had in mind or whether he intended to present Kumara as Mars with Taraka playing the part of Venus.
So that I will not be accused of having left any stones unturned, my argument is this: For those who see Kumara as Venus, this deity's birth from Shiva would still be unacceptable as evidence of a Venerian ejection from Jupiter since I have already shown that Shiva, rather than being Jupiter, actually represented Saturn. If Kumara was Venus, the deity's birth from Shiva would justify the claim put forward in this paper that the Venerian deity was the offspring of the Saturnian one. I cannot, however, rest my case on this argument because the correct planetary identification of Kumara is not as Miller indicated.
Kumara, a name which in Sanskrit means "Youth", is another name for Skanda(4) who is also known as Guha and/or Kartikeya.(s) Artur Isenberg believed that Kartikeya represented "certain aspects of the planet Venus" and that "he has nothing to do with the planet Mars".(6) Like Velikovsky, Isenberg supplied no evidence. The truth of the matter, however, is that Kartikeya is one of the Sanskrit names for the planet Mars.(7) For that matter, so is Kumara, Guha, and Skanda.(8)
Due to the ambiguity of the reference in Worlds in Collision, I shall give Velikovsky the benefit of the doubt and accept, as his intention, the portrayal of Kumara as Mars. This, of course, necessitates the identification of Taraka as Venus. But then, at the risk of sounding repetitious, I must again point out that Velikovsky supplied absolutely no evidence for this identification either.
"In the Vedas the planet Venus is compared to a bull."(1)
The above assertion is one of many such-like scattered throughout Worlds in Collision. Not only does Velikovsky offer no evidential support for the statement, it can safely be said that the assertion is incorrect since nowhere in the Vedas is the planet Venus compared to a bull or, for that matter, to anything else.
It is therefore not surprising that an early objection was raised against the above assertion. Voiced in the following words, the criticism came from Franklin Edgerton of Yale University:
To be fair, let me say at once that Edgerton's accusation that Velikovsky's reference (from the Atharva Veda) is inexact and misleading is not a valid one. Velikovsky supplied the same reference that Edgerton did, the only difference being that Edgerton included the number of the quoted verse which Velikovsky omitted. The number of the chapter as quoted by Velikovsky, however, was accurately cited.
Let me also add that it is precisely in matters such as this that a true pioneer, like Velikovsky, proves his worth. Anyone can repeat the assertions of previous authorities. The true scholar, on the other hand, consists of that person who is capable of discovering new truths.
That Indologists generally assume that no planets are mentioned in the Vedas therefore means nothing if it can be shown that certain deities mentioned in the hymns possess planetary traits and/or characteristics comparable to the planetary deities of other nations. Even so, it would still be incorrect to state that in the Vedas such and such a planet is compared to or described as anything. The most one might be able to state under such circumstances is that the planetary deity of Venus, or whatever, is there compared to (or described as) this or that.
Despite all this Velikovsky was still at fault for, as Edgerton pointed out, the deity quoted as compared to a bull is Prajapati. Prajapati is an epithet of Brahma,(3) or the Creator, and Brahma, as already indicated, was Saturn.
Like Prajapati, the Saturnian deity of other nations was also compared to a bull. Hislop considered that Kronos, the Greek Saturn, signified "the horned one".(4) This is not merely a modern interpretation, for Sanchoniathon also saw the name Kronos as meaning "to put forth horns".(5) In Egypt, Osiris was venerated as a bull god(6) and Velikovsky actually identified Osiris as the Egyptian Saturn.(7) In fact, to the Egyptians, the planet Saturn was explicitly known as the "bull of heaven".(8)
Another Vedic deity whom Velikovsky identified as the planet Venus is Agni.(1) But Velikovsky did not present Agni as the offspring of a Jovian god-head. Can it be shown instead that Agni was a child of Saturn?
Roger Ashton has already presented the following evidence to a Velikovskian audience:(2) In the Satapatha Brahmana, it is plainly stated that it was Prajapati who "created Agni";(3) that Prajapati "generated Agni from his mouth".(4) That Prajapati/Brahma was Saturn we have already indicated.
But, again, I cannot rest my case on this argument; not unless it can be shown that Agni truly represented the planet Venus. What evidence did Velikovsky produce in favor of this identification? Merely this:
Having indicated that a fragrant odor permeated the world due to the dissipation of hydrocarbons from Venus' cometary tail as it enveloped the Earth, Velikovsky cited Vedic hymns which laud Agni as he who "glows from the sky" while shedding a sweet "fragrance".
Is this enough to equate Agni with Venus? Not only is it not, Indic sources actually invalidate the equation.
Again I offer some evidence that has already been presented by Ashton. In the Satapatha Brahmana it is stated that "Agni is the year".(5) This instantly makes us suspect that Agni was connected with time just as Kronos/Chronos/Saturn and Shiva/Kala/Saturn were. Our suspicion is strengthened when we read that "Prajapati is [also] the year"(6) since Prajapati, as indicated above, is only an epithet of Brahma/Saturn. Nor need we rely on our suspicions since the same work verifies the equation in no uncertain terms when it states that "Prajapati is Agni".(7) It cannot, therefore, be escaped that, rather than symbolizing the planet Venus, Agni was only another manifestation of Saturn.
In effect Agni was more than just that. In the Satapatha Brahmana, it is asserted that "Agni means penetrating brilliance".(8) This inclines us to believe that Agni was connected directly with the light shed by Saturn when that luminary flared up with a light as "bright as a thousand suns".(9) We seem to be on the right track when we also learn that when Prajapati "generated Agni from his mouth," the Saturnian deity existed alone.(10) Our conviction is finally cemented when it is told that "when Prajapati . . . created Agni, the latter, as soon as born, sought to burn everything . . .".(11) And Agni, in fact, has always been venerated as the god of fire(12) from whose name the Latin "ignis " (fire), and thus the English "ignite", is derived.
Agni was not the only Indic deity described as having sprung from the mouth of the Creator. The celestial cow, Surabhi, had a similar origin. Concerning this bovine deity, Velikovsky had this to say:
The comparison might have held had Velikovsky supplied his readers with evidence in favor of equating the Hindu Creator with Zeus/Jupiter. Not only did he not, we have already shown elsewhere that he accepted the identity of the Hindu Creator, Prajapati/Brahma, as the planet Saturn. If Surabhi was truly Venus, her direct origin from Prajapati/Brahma/Saturn would, again, justify the claim put forward in this paper. But, for the third time, can I truly rest my case on this Indic incident? Can it, in other words, be proven that "the heavenly Surabhi" personified the planet Venus?
Velikovsky relied on descriptions which state that, when Surabhi was born, nectar and an "excellent perfume" were spread across the face of the Earth. Because a celestial fragrance is also reported to have enveloped the Israelites as they wandered through the wilderness, Velikovsky assumed that this must have originated in the dissipation of Venus' cometary tail, a portion of which he claims wrapped itself around the world. And, in fact, the Jewish legend he quotes does claim that this sweet perfume permeated the entire Earth.(2)
One of Velikovsky's sources – Targum Yerushalmi – informs us, however, that this celestial fragrance was wafted to the wilderness by the clouds from paradise.(3) Paradise was a state of existence which mankind remembers with longing and which has been traced by mythologists in general to that so-called mythical time known as the Golden Age.(4) This Golden Age, even according to Velikovsky, was the age of Saturn.(5) What Targum Yerushalmi really tells us, therefore, is that there was an earlier time – during the age of Saturn – when the world was perfumed by a fragrance similar to that which descended on the Israelites in the wilderness. And have we not already seen that, when Agni/Prajapati/Brahma/Saturn was born, he too was described as having shed a fragrance? Surabhi's equation with Venus cannot therefore be made to stand on the celestial cow's connection with the sweet perfume that filled the Earth since, by the same token, the comparison could just as well be used to equate the goddess with Saturn.
But was Saturn ever described by anyone as a celestial cow? I shall supply an answer to that question in a forthcoming section on Hathor.(6)
11. A Question
Velikovsky's planetary identifications of the Indic deities do not constitute only minor points in Worlds in Collision; and since these identifications can no longer be upheld, they will have to be abrogated.
This leaves us with a problem for, if every race and nation retained a fossilized memory of the cosmic events described in Worlds in Collision, why should the Hindus be an exception? The Aryans, although they might not yet have reached India at the time of the Venerian catastrophe, would have witnessed the same cosmic events that terrorized all other nations. In India, so should the Dravidians. Both races should have preserved these memories and it is only logical to assume that, as in the case of other nations, the agents responsible for the catastrophe would have been personified by some of the Indic deities. But if Shiva was not Jupiter, and Vishnu, Agni, and Surabhi were not Venus, who was it in the Hindu pantheon that personified these two terrible planets of old?
. . . to be continued.
Section 6: Vishnu and Shiva1. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N. Y., 1950), p. 168.
2. Ibid., pp. 78, 86, 168, 171, 182.
3. But see below re the beliefs of some modern Hindus.
4. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 77 ff., 85 ff., and elsewhere.
5. Pliny, Natural History, ii, 53.
6. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 273.
7. The foregoing argument has been extracted from my earlier paper, "Other Worlds, Other Collisions," read at the seminar "Velikovsky and Secular Catastrophism," held at San Jose, California, Aug. 30, 1980.
8. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 78.
9. Ibid., p. 168.
10. Ibid., p. 171
11. Ibid., p. 173.
12. Rig Veda, 1:32:1-15.
13. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 269, 282.
14. P. B. Onians, The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate (Cambridge, 1954), 2nd. edition, pp. 249 ff.
15. D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades," KRONOS III:4 (Summer 1978), p. 38.
16. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (N. Y., 1980), pp. 172 ff.
17. Ibid., pp. 213 ff.
18. Ibid., pp. 163 ff.
19. This argument is also extracted from "Other Worlds, Other Collisions" (see note No. 7).
20. J. Herbert, "Hindu Mythology," in "India: The Eternal Cycle," Larousse World Mythology (London, 1972), p. 209.
21. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 170-171.
22. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 62.
23. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii, 69.
24. Vishnu Purana, l:2 :45 ff.
25. I. Velikovsky, "My Challenge to Conventional Views in Science," KRONOS III:2 (Winter 1977), p. 6; for further evidence that Brahma was Saturn see D. Cardona "Let there be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 42, 47; D. N. Talbott, op. cit., pp. 18, 19, 23, 28, 55, 88, 116, 120, 134, 189, 261.
26. W. D. O'Flaherty, Hindu Myths (Harmondsworth, 1976), pp. 138-141.
27. D. Cardona, op. cit., pp. 34-44.
28. H. de Wilman-Grabowska, "Brahmanic Mythology," Asiatic Mythology (London, 1972), p. 120.
29. C. H. Marchal, "The Mythology of Indo-China and Java," in Ibid., p. 211.
30. J. N. Sammer to D. Cardona, April 18, 1981, private communique.
31. J. Thomas, "Siva," Universal Pronouncing Dictionary of Biography and Mythology (Philadelphia)
32. W. Jones, "On the Gods of Greece, Italy and India," Asiatick Researches (1799), Vol. I.
33. F. Wilford, "On Egypt and Other Countries Adjacent to the Cali River or Nile of Ethiopia from the Ancient Books of the Hindus," in Ibid., Vol. III, p. 382.
34. Ibid. (Note: Notes No. 31 to 34 are as cited by J. N. Sammer, see note No. 30.)
35. Aurelius Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 7:16 where Athene is referred to by her Roman name of Minerva.
36. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1:22:8.
36a. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians (N.Y., 1904/1969), Vol. II, p. 303.
39. A. B. Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion (N.Y., 1965), Vol. II, Part I, pp. 45 ff.
40. The pillar of Kronos was more often alluded to as the "tower" of Kronos. See Pindar, Olympian Odes, 2:68 ff.
41. D. Cardona, "Jupiter – God of Abraham," Part 1, KRONOS VII:1, pp. 71-74; and Part II, Ibid, VII:2, pp. 4748.
42. For more concerning this argument see idem, "Let there be Light," in Ibid. III: 3 (Spring 1978), p. 49.
43. H. de Wilman-Grabowska, loc. cit. 44. J. Herbert, op. cit., p. 211.
Section 7: Kumara and Taraka1. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), p. 268.
2. A. Miller, Index to the Works of Immanuel Velikovsky (Glassboro, 1977), Vol. I, p. 261.
3. Ibid., p. 160.
4. W. D. O'Flaherty, op. cit., p. 346.
5. Ibid., p. 354.
6. A. Isenberg, "Devi and Venus,"; KRONOS II:1 (August 1976), p. 99.
7. V. S. Apte, The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary (U.K., 1920); see also G. de Santillana and H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Boston, 1969), p. 157; D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades," KRONOS III:4 (Summer 1978), pp. 31, 35.
8. V. S. Apte, op. cit.
Section 8: Prajapati1. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 179.
2. F. Edgerton, "Still Colliding," Harper's Magazine, August 1951.
3. W. D. O'Flaherty, op. cit., p. 350.
4. A. Hislop, The Two Babylons (London, 1972), p. 32.
5. Ibid., pp. 193-194.
6. E. A. Wallis Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (N.Y., 1911/1973), Vol. I, pp. 397 ff.
7. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 174, idem, "On Saturn and the Flood," KRONOS V:1 (Fall 1979), pp. 4, 5; for further evidence of Osiris as Saturn see W. Mullen, "A Reading of the Pyramid Texts," Pensée (Winter 1973), pp. 12 ff.; D. Cardona, "The Sun of Night," KRONOS III:1 (Aug. 1977), pp. 35-36; H. Tresman and B. O'Gheoghan, "The Primordial Light?" SISR II:2 (Dec. 1977), pp. 36-38; D. N. Talbott, op. cit., pp. 13, 15, 27 and elsewhere throughout same work.
8. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, (N.Y., 1904/1969), Vol. II, pp. 302-303.
Section 9: Agni1. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y, 1950), pp. 133-134.
2. R. Ashton, "The Age of Purple Darkness," read at the seminar "Velikovsky and Secular Catastrophism," San Jose, California, Aug. 31, 1980.
3. Satapatha Brahmana, II:3:3:1.
4. Ibid., II:2:4:1.
5. Ibid., VI:6:4:16.
6. Ibid., XI:1:6:13
7. Ibid., VI:2:2:5 (emphasis added).
8. Ibid., III:9:1:19.
9. D. Cardona, "Let there be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 3944.
10. Satapatha Brahmana, II:2:4:1.; see also H. Tresman and B. O'Gheoghan, op. cit., p. 36. For more on Saturn existing alone, see the writer's forthcoming paper "Darkness and the Deep".
11. Satapatha Brahmana, II:3:3:1.
12. W. D. O'Flaherty, op. cit., p. 339. Cf. R. W. Wescott, "Polymathics and Catastrophism," KRONOS IV:1 (Fall 1978), pp. 17-18.
Section 10: Surabhi1. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 181
2. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, (Philadelphia, 5728/1968), Vol. III, pp. 158, 235.
3. Targum Yerushalmi, on Exodus 35:28.
4. R. Heinberg, "The Garden, the Fall and the Restoration," KRONOS VI:2 (Winter 1981) pp. 48-52.
5. I. Velikovsky, "On Saturn and the Flood," KRONOS V:1 (Fall 1979), p. 5.
6. There is, of course, a more well known tale of Surabhi's origin in which the celestial cow was churned out of the Milk Ocean. This event supposedly took place immediately following the Deluge and so, again, the occurrence is connected with Saturn rather than Venus.